ly and the categorial status of 'adverbs'

21 Pages·2017·0.68 MB·English

Edinburgh Research Explorer

The morphology of -ly and the categorial status of ‘adverbs’ in

English

Citation for published version:
Giegerich, HJ 2012, 'The morphology of -ly and the categorial status of ‘adverbs’ in English', English
Language and Linguistics, vol. 16, no. 03, pp. 341-359. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674312000147

Digital Object Identifier (DOI):

10.1017/S1360674312000147

Link:
Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer

Document Version:
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Published In:

English Language and Linguistics

Publisher Rights Statement:

© Cambridge University Press (2012). Giegerich, H., The morphology of -ly and the categorial status of ‘adverbs’
in English. English Language and Linguistics, 16, pp 341-359. doi:10.1017/S1360674312000147. Final
publication available online at http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1360674312000147

General rights

Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s)
and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and
abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

Take down policy
The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer
content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please
contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and
investigate your claim.

Download date: 07. Feb. 2023
English Language and Linguistics
http://journals.cambridge.org/ELL
Additional services for English Language and Linguistics:
Email alerts: Click here
Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here
The morphology of ­ly and the categorial status of 
‘adverbs’ in English
HEINZ J. GIEGERICH
English Language and Linguistics / Volume 16 / Issue 03 / November 2012, pp 341 ­ 359
DOI: 10.1017/S1360674312000147, Published online: 22 October 2012
Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1360674312000147
How to cite this article:
HEINZ J. GIEGERICH (2012). The morphology of ­ly and the categorial status of ‘adverbs’ in 
English. English Language and Linguistics, 16, pp 341­359 doi:10.1017/S1360674312000147
Request Permissions : Click here
Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/ELL, IP address: 129.215.19.197 on 15 Jul 2013
EnglishLanguageandLinguistics16.3: 341–359.(cid:2)C CambridgeUniversityPress2012
doi:10.1017/S1360674312000147
The morphology of -ly and the categorial status
of ‘adverbs’ in English1
HEINZ J. GIEGERICH
UniversityofEdinburgh
(Received15June2011;revised9November2011)
I argue in this article that adverb-forming -ly, unlike its adjective-forming counterpart,
isaninflectionalsuffix,thatthereforeadverbscontaining-lyareinflectedadjectivesand
that, consequently, adverbs not containing -ly are uninflected adjectives. I demonstrate
thatinEnglish,thetraditionalcategoryAdverbismorphologicallynon-distinctfromthe
categoryAdjectiveinthatithasnomorphologyofitsownbutinsteadsharesallrelevant
aspects of the morphology of adjectives. I demonstrate moreover that such an analysis
explains various aspects of morphological and phonological behaviour on the part of
adverbial-lywhichdifferfromthebehaviourofadjectival-lyand/orfromthebehaviour
ofderivationalsuffixes.AndIarguethatcontrarytoarecentclaim,thesyntacticbehaviour
ofadverbspresentsnoobstacletothesingle-categoryanalysisofadjectivesandadverbs
warrantedbythemorphology.
1 Introduction
1.1 Theproblem
In English, suffixes of the form -ly figure in two – perhaps three – morphological
processes:intheformationofde-adjectivaladverbs,ofde-nominaladjectivesaswell
as (now unproductively: Marchand 1969: 330) of a small number of de-adjectival
adjectives.Examplesofeacharegivenin(1a,b,c)respectively.
(1) (a) nicely (b) manly (c) kindly
slowly bodily deadly
stupidly friendly lively
consistently neighbourly sickly
interestingly daily poorly
Although superficially similar and historically closely related (see, for example,
Pounder2001),thedifferentprocessesinvolving-lyshowsomestrikingdifferencesin
behaviour.Whileanyadjective-forming-lycanoccurbeforeotherderivationalsuffixes
(manliness,neighbourliness;deadliness,livelihood),adverb-forming-lycannotoccur
insuchcontexts:∗niceliness,∗slowliness.Incontrast,adverbsnotformedwith-lydo
1 ThisarticleisatleastinpartaresponsetoPayne,Huddleston&Pullum(2010).Indeed,itprobablyowesits
veryexistencetoconversationswithmydepartmentalcolleagueGeoffPullum,whosedisagreementIgratefully
andcheerfullyacknowledge.HeikeBaeskow,NikGisborne,TracyHall,S.J.Hannahs,DonkaMinkova,Ingo
Plag,Hans-JörgSchmid,GregStumpandtwoanonymousreviewershavealsoprovidedhelpfulcommentsand
suggestions.
342 HEINZ J. GIEGERICH
occasionally undergomorphologicalderivation: soonish, seldomness, etc.Itseemsto
be the adverb-forming suffix, not the adverb status as such, of forms such as nicely,
slowlythatbarsfurtherderivation.
Moreover,whileanyadjectival-lycanbefollowedbyinflectionalsuffixes(manlier,
deadliest,etc.),adverbial-lyagaincannotoccurinsuchcontexts:∗nicelier,∗slowliest.
Suchformsareamenabletoperiphrasticgradationonly:morenicely,mostslowly.Again
it seems to be the suffix, not the lexeme’s adverb status, which prevents inflectional
gradation:someadverbswithout-lyarecapableofinflectionalgradation,regardlessof
whethertheyhaveadjectivalhomonyms(earlier,faster)ornot(sooner,soonest).
I will in this article subscribe to the claim that in English ‘adverb’ is not a lexical
categorybutmerelyaspecificmodifierfunctionperformedbymembersofthecategory
Adjective, associated with contexts other than those traditionally associated with
adjectives.This‘single-categoryclaim’mightbetakentoimplythatthede-adjectival
versions of adjective-forming and adverb-forming -ly, exemplified in (1c) and (1a)
respectively,constitutethesamederivationalsuffix.Deadlyandnicelywouldthenhave
identicalmorphologicalstructures,andwoulddiffermerelyintermsoftheirsyntactic
distributions.Butsuchananalysis,howeverattractiveatfirstglance,wouldbeunable
to account for the unusual behaviour of adverbial -ly which I noted above: adjectival
-ly fails to share this behaviour. At any rate, contrary to what Baker (2003: 231)
suggests,thesingle-categoryclaimcouldnotpossiblybebasedon,orsubstantiatedby,
the observation that adjective-forming and adverb-forming -ly are of identical form.
Suchanobservationisofdiachronicinterestonly:similarityofformdoesnotindicate
synchronicrelatednessanymorethanhistoricalrelatednessdoes.
Compare, for example, the two suffixes of the form -al found in English. Noun-
forming -al (arrival, referral, withdrawal) attaches to end-stressed verbal bases only,
but is itself stress-neutral, while adjective-forming -al, attaching to Latinate roots of
which many also function as nouns, does not have such a restriction on its input
selectionbutisitself‘stress-shifting’:matern-–maternal,pivot–pivotal,accident–
accidental(Marchand1969:236ff.;Giegerich1999:54ff.,113f.).Englishsimplyhas
two derivational suffixes which share the form -al; they are associated with different
derivationalprocessesandgiverisetodifferentlexicalcategorymembership.
However, merely asserting that similarly the two -ly suffixes are associated with
different derivational processes would fare no better than the single-category claim
alonedoesinexplainingtheunusualbehaviourofadverb-forming-ly.Iwilltherefore
argue, in addition to subscribing to the single-category claim, that adjectival and
adverbial -ly are in terms of the morphological system of English radically different
suffixes:theformerisaderivationalsuffixwhilethelatterisinflectional.Indeadly,the
suffix is derivational but non-category-changing (like, for example, -ish in greenish);
but nicely is an inflected form of the adjective nice. I will demonstrate how such
an analysis finds it easy to explain the various aspects of strange behaviour on the
partofadverbial-ly,whileunderthetraditional,derivationalanalysisofadverbial-ly,
whichaswesawmayormaynottreatadjectivesandadverbsascategoriallydistinct,
such behaviour defies explanation. The ‘inflected-adjective claim’ then entails the
THE MORPHOLOGY OF -LY AND THE CATEGORIAL STATUS 343
OF ‘ADVERBS’ IN ENGLISH
single-categoryclaim(butnotviceversa):ifadverbial-lyisinflectionalthenadverbs
cannotbecategoriallydistinctfromadjectives.
It follows from the two related claims made here that lexemes performing the
‘adverb’functionwhichdonotendinthesuffix-ly(forexample,soon,seldom,early,
fast, etc.) must be regarded as uninflected adjectives, which differ from traditional
adjectives merely in terms of their distribution. I will demonstrate that, again, this
analysisisadvantageousinthat,unlikeitsmoretraditionalalternative,itexplainsthe
morphologicalbehaviourofsuchlexemes.
1.2 Theresearchbackground
Thesingle-categoryclaimforadverbial-lyisnotaltogethernew;ithasbeenmadeon
syntacticgroundsforexamplebyLyons(1966),Emonds(1976),Bybee(1985),Radford
(1988)andBaker(2003),allofwhombasetheirargumentationonthecomplementary
distribution of adjectives and adverbs: adjective phrases function as predicates or as
modifiers in the noun phrase; adverb phrases can be modifiers elsewhere. I return to
thisissueinsection5below,whereIdiscussthecounterargumentstothatpositionput
forwardbyPayneetal.(2010).
The inflected-adjective claim derives some support from the syntactic single-
categoryclaim(withoutfollowingfromit,aswesawabove)inthatthecomplementary
distribution of adjectives and adverbs enables not only the distribution of adverbs,
but thereby also that of adverbial -ly, to be treated as conditioned by the syntax.
In morphological theories which make a systematic distinction between derivation
and inflection, this is one criterion of several for inflectional status. Where inflection
is further divided into ‘inherent inflection’ and ‘contextual inflection’ (Booij 1996),
adverbial-lywouldbelongwiththelatter.
Ofcourse,furthercriteriahavetobeinvokedtodeterminewhetheragivensuffixis
inflectionalorderivational.ThusHockett(1958:210)observedthatadverbial-lyand
suffixal gradation are mutually exclusive (∗quicklier, ∗quickerly). Given that suffixal
gradation is held to be inflectional (for discussion see Stephany 1982; Zwicky 1989,
1995),-lybelongstothesameparadigm,andisthereforeitselfinflectional.
Sugioka & Lehr (1983) make the inflected-adjective claim mainly on the grounds
that adverbial -ly does not attach to adverbs where those are the first elements of
compounds (widespread, fresh frozen), a feature shared by all regular inflection. (For
discussionseeZwicky1995.)Idealwiththispointinmoredetailinsection3.1below.
Sugioka&Lehr(1983)alsoarguethatthedialect-specificabsenceof-ly,forexample
in John ate quick, supports the inflected-adjective claim – for discussion see again
Zwicky(1995).Idealwiththispointinsection3.2below.Plag(2003),finally,regards
the transparency and productivity of adverbial -ly as indicative of its inflectional
status – another criterion that will deserve further discussion, provided below in
section3.3.
On the balance of the arguments known to them, both Zwicky (1995) and Payne
etal.(2010)comedownonthesideofthetraditionalpositionwhichaffordsadverbs
344 HEINZ J. GIEGERICH
categorialdistinctnessfromadjectivesandtreatsall-lyasderivational.Iwillarguein
thefollowingsectionsthatthemorphologicalsystemofEnglishitself,aswellasamong
other things the morphological behaviour of underived adverbs, provides important,
but hitherto overlooked, additional arguments for the inflectional analysis of -ly, so
that–again,onbalance–thatanalysisistobepreferred.2
2 ‘Adverbs’andtheorganisationofthemorphology
Iargueinthissectionthataninflectionaltreatmentofadverbial-lyisconsistentwith
themorphological system’sgeneralarchitecturewhileaderivationaltreatment isnot.
Under an analysis which recognises Adverb as a lexical category, the behaviour of
-lywouldmaskcentralaspectsofthatarchitectureandtherebyinhibitgeneralisations
aboutit;andneithertheadjective-likemorphologicalbehaviourofunderivedadverbs
northeinflection-likebehaviourofadverbial-lywouldhavesynchronicexplanations.
2.1 Nouns,verbsandadjectives,butnotadverbs,freelyderivefromeachother
In the derivational morphology of English, the three lexical categories Noun, Verb
and Adjective freely interact with each other. Nouns can be derived from both verbs
andadjectives;verbscanbederivedfromadjectivesandnouns;andadjectivesinturn
canbederivedfromnounsandverbs.Someexamplesaregivenin(2);theexhaustive
descriptiveaccountgivenbyMarchand(1969)givesmanymore.
(2) (a) de-verbalnouns (b) de-adjectivalnouns
driver strangeness
approval radicalism
development sincerity
(c) de-nominalverbs (d) de-adjectivalverbs
victimise blacken
beautify enlarge
hyphenate nationalise
(e) de-verbaladjectives (f) de-nominaladjectives
drinkable joyful
speculative meaningless
repellent foolish
Notallthederivationalprocessesbehindthecomplexlexemeslistedin(2)arefully
productiveinPresent-dayEnglish;buttheproductivityofderivationalprocessesisnot
atissuehere.ThepointisthatbetweenanytwoofthethreecategoriesAdjective,Noun
and Verb there exist synchronically analysable two-way derivational relationships, to
whichanumberofconversionprocessesmaybeaddedforcompleteness.
2 Intriguingly,theinflected-adjectiveclaimappearstobetacitlysharedbyMarchand(1969),whogivesadetailed
accountofadjective-forming-ly(pp.329ff.)butmakesnomentionatallofthesuffix’sadverb-formingfunction.
(SimilarlyHansenetal.1990.)
THE MORPHOLOGY OF -LY AND THE CATEGORIAL STATUS 345
OF ‘ADVERBS’ IN ENGLISH
Incontrast,whenadverbsarederivedfrommembersofotherlexicalcategoriesthen
thesuffixinvolvedisalways-ly,andtheotherlexicalcategoryinvolvedisalwaysthat
ofAdjective((1a)above).Noadverbsderivefromverbsornouns.
Moreover, recall from section 1 that adjectival -ly can be followed by other
derivational suffixes but adverbial -ly cannot: manliness vs ∗slowliness, ∗niceliness.
Given also that morphologically complex adverbs such as unpleasantly can be
uncontroversially analysed as [[unpleasant]ly] rather than [un[pleasantly]], we can
make the general observation that -ly adverbs cannot be affixation bases in the
derivationalmorphology:nothingcanbederivedfromthem.
There are some other suffixes in the derivational morphology of English which,
without major consequences for the morphological system, behave in this somewhat
exceptional way: for example, -ism and -ity (Fabb 1988; Hay & Plag 2004). But the
specific fact that adverbial -ly is a derivational dead-end does have consequences for
themorphologicalsystemasawhole:giventheexclusiveroleof-lyintheformation
of adverbs, it effectively isolates the putative category Adverb in the system. The
derivational paths available in the morphology of English can then be schematically
represented as in (3), where adverbial -ly is treated as derivational and Adverb as a
lexicalcategory.
(3) Theplaceofadverbsinthederivationalmorphology3
N
V Adj Adv
Inotedinsection1theoccasionaloccurrenceofderivativesfrommorphologically
simple adverbs: soonish, seldomness, soonness, unseldom, and probably more, are
attested. Payne et al. (2010: 63) cite the existence of such de-adverbial derivatives as
supportforthecategorialintegrityofadverbs,notnoting,however,thatthederivational
affixesinvolved–-ish,-ness,un-–areallprimarilyandproductivelyassociatedwithde-
adjectivalprocesses.Greenish,kindness,unkindwouldserveasmoretypicalexamples
oftheprocessesinvolvedthanoccasionaladverbderivativeslikesoonish.
Itmightbearguedthatderivationalsuffixessuchasthoseinvolvedherearealready
knowntosporadicallyattachtomembersofothercategories(eightish,oneness,unease),
andthatthereforeAdverbisjustanothercategorythatsuchsuffixesstrayonto.Butthis
would amount to giving soonish etc. an equally sporadic status, which in turn would
miss a larger picture: the connection of all such ‘de-adverbal’ derivatives specifically
withthede-adjectivalmorphology.Underivedadverbssimplydonottakesuffixesthat
3 Asimilardiagram,figuring,however,inanargumentunrelatedtothisarticle’stopic,appearsinSchmid(2011:
180).
346 HEINZ J. GIEGERICH
arenotpredominantlyde-adjectival.Thederivationalbehaviourofunderivedadverbs
supportstheclaim,then,that‘adverbs’aremembersofthecategoryAdjective.English
hasnoderivationalprocesseswhichcouldbespecificallycalled‘de-adverbial’,justas
it has no morphological processes specifically associated with minor categories such
asDeterminer,Preposition,etc.
Theseobservationsstronglysupportthesingle-categoryclaim.ThereisinEnglisha
triangleoflexicalcategories–Noun,VerbandAdjective–withinwhichthederivational
morphology is conducted. If there is a category Adverb then the derivational
morphology of that category is at best that of an appendix to the category Adjective.
Allderivedadverbshaveadjectivalbases;underivedadverbsbehavemorphologically
likeadjectives.
2.2 Nouns,verbsandadjectives,butnotadverbs,havedistinctinflectional
morphologies
Thesetofthreelexicalcategories–Noun,VerbandAdjective–isnotonlysignificantto
thederivationalmorphology;itfiguressimilarlyintheinflectionalsystem.Ifweassume
withmostoftheliteraturethatmorphologicalgradation(kinder,kindest)isinflectional
(Stephany1982;Zwicky1989),forexamplebecausecertainsyntacticcontextsrequire
comparativeforms–Xis_____thanY–thenthethreelexicalcategoriesNoun,Verb
andAdjective,andonlythese,haveregularinflectionalmorphology.
We saw in section 1 that -ly adverbs reject inflectional suffixes – recall ∗nicelier,
∗slowliest,whichareill-formedwhiletheiradjectivalcounterparts(manlier,deadliest)
are grammatical. They reject plural (∗nicelies) and the inflectional morphology
associated with verbs as well, of course. Underived adverbs may inflect for grade,
just like adjectives, regardless of whether they have adjectival homonyms or not:
sooner,soonest,faster,earliest.Itmaybeobservedherethatgradationisnototherwise
strictly confined to adjectives, but may occur, for example, with prepositions which
haveadjectivalhomonyms(close,near,far–Pullum&Huddleston2002b:609),but
that does not invalidate the main point connected with the gradability of underived
adverbs.ThemainpointisthatthetraditionalcategoryAdverbagainstandsapartfrom
theotherthreelexicalcategories.Ithasnoinflectionalmorphologyofitsown,justas
ithasnoderivationalmorphologyofitsown.Whenadverbsdoinflecttheybehaveas
thoughtheywereadjectives.
Thisaspectofadjective-likebehaviourisparticularlycompellinginthecaseofwell.
Wherethisisanadjectiveasinawellman,regulargradationisavailableasexpected:
thewellestmanintheworld.Incontrast,wellastheunderivedadverbcorresponding
to adjectival good does not grade as ∗weller, ∗wellest, as one might expect after the
model of other underived adverbs such as soon (sooner, soonest). It goes instead
with the irregular gradation of the corresponding adjective, such that better, best are
theirregulargradedformsofbothgoodandadverbialwell.Thisobservationstrongly
suggeststhatthereisaparadigmaticrelationshipbetweengoodandadverbialwell(from
whichadjectivalwellisexcluded):ifthesetwowereparadigmaticallyasunrelatedas
THE MORPHOLOGY OF -LY AND THE CATEGORIAL STATUS 347
OF ‘ADVERBS’ IN ENGLISH
they are in formal morphological terms then adverbial well would be expected to
gradeweller,wellest,likeadjectivalwell.Moregenerally,thisobservationsupportsthe
claim that graded adverbs such as faster, earlier, etc. are not just homonymous with
gradedadjectiveswheresuchhomonymsareavailable,butthattheyinfactaregraded
adjectives:again,withoutsuchaclaim,thefactthatwellsharestheparadigmofgood,
althoughthatparadigmisitselfhighlyirregularandthereforenotofdefaultstatus,has
toberegardedasastrangesynchroniccoincidence.
The complete picture of morphological pathways is given in (4), now including
inflection.RecallingHockett(1958)fromsection1.2,noticehowthe‘Adv’pathwayof
(3) above (occupied by adverbial -ly) can be conflated with that of -er/-est. These
observations again support the single-category claim, as well as at least lending
plausibilitytotheinflected-adjectiveclaimfor-lyadverbs.
(4) Thearchitectureofthemorphologicalsystem:
N -s/-0
-s/-ing/-ed/-0 V Adj -er/-est/-ly
In summary, the traditional analysis, defended by Zwicky (1995) and Payne et al.
(2010), which accords adverbs lexical category status on a par with the other three,
masksimportantgeneralisationsaboutthemorphologicalsystemofEnglishandabout
the behaviour of its members. Only members of lexical categories are part of the
morphological system; and adverbs are clearly not integrated in that system. They
have neither a derivational nor an inflectional morphology of their own. Moreover,
when adverbs in any way appear to undergo morphological processes – derivational
orinflectional–thentheseprocessesarealwaysofthekindprimarilyassociatedwith
adjectives,evenwherethosearethemselvesirregular(better,best).Anadjectivalanal-
ysis accounts for the adjectival morphological behaviour of underived adverbs: these
behave like adjectives simply because they are adjectives. It equally accounts for the
oddbehaviourof-ly-derived‘adverbs’withinthemorphologicalsystem.Thesearenot
derivedbutinflected;andgiventheiradjectivalbases,theymustbeinflectedadjectives.
ThelexicalcategoriesofEnglishare,then,Noun,VerbandAdjective.Thecategory
Adjective makes an inflectional distinction between the traditional ‘adjectival’ and
‘adverbial’functions,whichis,however,suspendedinthecomparativeandsuperlative
grades,similarlytothewayinwhich,forexample,theverbalinflectiondoesnotexpress
persondistinctionsinthepasttense.
I will, in the remainder of this article, discuss further aspects of the behaviour
of ‘adverb-forming’ -ly, and show that those either support, or are consistent with,
348 HEINZ J. GIEGERICH
an inflectional analysis of this suffix. This will, perhaps unexpectedly, involve not
only morphological and syntactic behaviour but also phonological behaviour. A brief
discussionofthesyntacticbehaviourofadverbsandwhythatbehaviouragainsupports,
orisconsistentwith,aninflectionalanalysisofadverbial-lywillconcludethearticle.
3 Furthermorphologicalaspectsoftheinflection-likebehaviourofadverbial-ly
3.1 Confinementtothemarginsoflexemes
Adverbs formed with -ly cannot undergo morphological derivation, while underived
adverbs as well as adjectives formed with -ly can: recall ∗niceliness vs soonness and
manliness.Adverb-forming-lyalsocannotbefollowedbyinflectionalsuffixes:recall
∗nicelier, ∗slowliest (and again contrast non-ly adverbs and non-adverbial -ly: sooner
and manlier). If adverbial -ly were a derivational suffix then it would be the only
suchsuffixinEnglishtobeconfinedtotheabsolutelylexeme-finalposition:allother
derivationalsuffixescanbefollowedbyinflectionaland/orotherderivationalsuffixes.
But if adverbial -ly is treated as inflectional then this fact forms part of the much
larger, though not uncontroversial, generalisation whereby regular inflection cannot
occur inside lexemes but is confined to their margins (Kiparsky 1982; Rainer 1996;
Cetnarowska2001).Thus,∗eventsful,∗peersless,∗watches-maker,∗rats-infestedareill-
formeddespitethefactthattheembeddedpluralformsmaybesemanticallywarranted,
whilelexemescontainingirregularinflection,suchasheadlice-repellent,mice-infested,
arewell-formed.Similarly,andsupportingtheseparateclaimthatadjectivalgradation
is inflectional, irregularly graded adjectives are occasionally found inside derivatives
while regularly graded adjectives again cannot occur there: to better, to further, to
lessen,toworsen;betterment,furtherance,etc.vs∗tonicer,∗tallerment,∗richerance,
etc.
Sugioka & Lehr (1983), among the first to defend the inflected-adjective claim on
morphologicalgrounds,relyheavilyonthispositionalconstraintonregularinflection.
Theyadducetwoconstructiontypesinsupportoftheirclaim,bothofwhichtheyregard
as compounds and neither of which can contain -ly adverbs as first elements. I will
argueherethatoneoftheseisnotactuallyofcompoundstatus,andhenceisirrelevant,
butthattheotherisrelevantandthatthereisalsoathirdone.
ThefirstconstructionadducedbySugioka&Lehr(1983)isexemplifiedin(5):
(5) beautifuldancer
quickthinker
fastmover
heavysmoker
Eachoftheseisambiguous,suchthatabeautifuldancercanbeabeautifulpersonwho
isadancerorsomeonewhodancesbeautifully(butmaybeofunattractiveappearance).
ThelatterversionSugioka&Lehrregardasacompoundlexeme,presumablybecause
it has a superficial similarity to synthetic compounds such as watch-maker: in both